A writ petition challenging the evaluation of a judicial service entrance examination paper was dismissed. The court held that marks were correctly awarded despite the petitioner's dispute and did not interfere with the recruiting authority's decision.
Writ of certiorari dismissed; connected W.M.P.(MD) matters also dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 06-12-2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.P.(MD) No.28115 of 2023
D.Ganeshamoorthi ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.The Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Judicature, Chennai -1.
2.The Secretary to Government, Public (Special-A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to impugned proceeding, dated 09.11.2023, on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner preliminary Exam Paper-II in District Judge (Entry Level) in the Tamilnadu State Judicial Service which was conducted on 30.09.2023 and to issue fresh mark statement to the petitioner within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Court.
2/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
For Petitioner : Mr.A.E.Chelliah, Senior Counsel, for Mr.Krishnamoorthi.AD. For Respondent 1 : Mr.D.Sivaraman
ORDER
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J .)
Petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to impugned proceeding, dated 09.11.2023, on the file of first respondent, quash the same as illegal and arbitrary, and, consequently, direct the respondents to re-evaluate the petitioner's Preliminary Exam Paper-II in District Judge (Entry Level) in the Tamilnadu State Judicial Service, which was conducted on 30.09.2023, and to issue fresh mark statement.
3/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
after the negative mark, he has secured 31.25 marks; paper has been wrongly evaluated and mark awarded as 29.75, which is not a qualifying mark for the main examination and that he has been unnecessarily prevented from taking up the main examination scheduled on the aforesaid dates. He would further submit that the action of the respondents in not evaluating the paper correctly and granting marks is illegal, arbitrary and, hence, Paper-II has to be re-valuated and he be given fresh marks and, thereafter, further examination conducted.
4/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
some questions correctly, no mark has been awarded.
which is scanned below :
5/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
6/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
7/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
8/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
The petitioner wanted to insist upon, that, for Question No.82, 35 Kmph is the correct answer, which we have dealt with in the decision in W.P.No.33166 of 2023 on 24.11.2023 and the relevant portions of the said order are as follows :
''2. For the sake of better appreciation of the petitioner's case, it is
worth extracting Q. Nos.15 and 67 of Paper II together with options:
15. xxxxxx
67. A person covers a certain distance by car at a speed of 30 Kmph and comes back at a speed of 40 kmph. The average speed during the travel is:
(A) 34.3 Kmph (B) 37.5 Kmph (C) 35 Kmph (D) 32.8 Kmph
9/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
5. As regards Question No.67, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the correct answer is only Option (A), i.e., 34.3 Kmph and not Option (C) i.e., 35 Kmph, as contended by the petitioner. The learned Standing Counsel, however, fairly admitted that in the recruitment conducted in 2020, when the very same question with very same options was asked, the key answer given by the respondents was only Option (C), i.e., 35 Kmph and even on this occasion, initially, Option (C) was published as the key answer; however, realising that Option (C) is a wrong key answer predicated on a wrong calculation, this year, the respondents have changed the key answer as Option (C) as per the formula and working scanned below:
10/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
8. Insofar as Question No.67, as stated earlier, the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the 2020 recruitment, when marks were awarded for those who chose Option (C) i.e., 35 Kmph as the answer, changing the key answer this year for the very same question, that too, at the eleventh hour, without giving the petitioner an opportunity to submit his objections for the said key answer, cannot be accepted. This mistake pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is fairly accepted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. But, be it noted, just because the respondents had provided a wrong key answer in the earlier recruitment, it is not necessary that the same wrong answer will have to be provided as the correct key answer in the subsequent recruitments too. Is to err not human? Having erred on the last occasion and even this year initially, realising that Option (C) is a wrong key answer owing to a wrong calculation, the respondents have thought it fit to give the correct key answer as Option (A). In our considered view, two wrongs will not make
a thing right and a wrong committed in a recruitment process one year, need not be perpetuated. If at all, this argument of the learned counsel
11/13 W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
for the petitioner is to be accepted, will not those candidates who had correctly given their answer as Option (A), be prejudiced ?''
Therefore, the case of the petitioner therein was rejected, which is applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner herein, and though the petitioner submitted that for Question No.53, Section 311 Cr.P.C. is the correct answer and drew the attention of this Court to Sections 217 and 311 Cr.P.C., we make it clear that the question is very simple and direct about the power of the Criminal Court to recall and re-examine the witnesses and the correct answer would be 'C', as both Sections, namely, 217 and 311 Cr.P.C. enable the Criminal Court to recall and re-examine the witnesses. Hence, we are of the view that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
Index : Yes/No (S.V.N.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) Internet : Yes/No 06-12-2023 dixit
Note to Office :
Upload / Issue Order Copy by 07.12.2023.
12/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
To
13/13
W.P.(MD).No.28115/2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN,J. AND K.RAJASEKAR,J.
dixit
W.P.MD.No.28115 of 2023
06-12-2023
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding erroneous evaluation of his mark sheet in a judicial service recruitment exam warrants issuance of a writ of certiorari.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.33166 of 2023Relied on¶65
D. Ganeshamoorthi
The Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Judicature, Chennai
The Secretary to Government, Public (Special-A) Department, Secretariat, Chennai
S. Vaidyanathan
K. Rajasekar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
